Assessing Student Compositions. Consensual Assessment Technique, Rating Scales, and Rubrics

Assessment is an essential part of the educational process. For a music teacher however, the word assessment may conjure multiple images. It could pertain to state or federal testing that occurs annually in all public schools (e.g., “The state education assessments are going on this week”). It could describe the state solo and ensemble or large group music festival (e.g., “We are playing at the VBODA District Concert Assessment this weekend”). Additionally, it may mean the procedure we use to evaluate how successful a lesson was or the process by which we provide feedback or assign grades. In this section, I will use the term assessment to generally describe the process of providing feedback and evaluating the quality of student work.

Consensual Assessment Technique, Rating Scales, and Rubrics.Amabile (1982, 1996) developed Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) to overcome the lack of a clear definition of creativity. Amabile (1982) theorized “A product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree it is creative” (p. 1001). She further clarified that “appropriate observers” were experts in the domain in which the product was created. Several studies of student music composition used measures based on CAT (Hickey, 2001; Menard, 2015; Priest, 2001). Furthermore, student compositions submitted for consideration in many local, state, and national level competitions are evaluated using some form of Consensual Assessment Technique.

Rating scales and rubrics are evaluation tools that delineate the criteria for student work across various levels of success. Azzara and Grunow (2006) developed rating scales to measure a variety of musical content including rhythm, expressive elements, harmonic progression, and improvisation skills. Stringham (2010) adapted those rating scales as part of a study involving high school student composers.

Hickey (1999, 2013) advocated using rubrics to provide students with a clear understanding of how their compositions will be assessed. The article detailed the process of constructing and adapting rubrics and included several examples of rubrics designed for evaluating various student compositions. Beginning composers may benefit from rubrics that help to support their creative efforts through the early stages. Deutsch (2016) agrees that rubrics can be helpful with some tasks but cautions that no rubric will be applicable to all tasks or compositions. While a well-constructed rubric or rating scale, designed for a particular assignment, may provide a basis for meaningful discussion, a poorly constructed or generic one is likely to be interpreted as a checklist that could cause students to focus on the stated criteria to the exclusion of other creative possibilities.

Formative and Summative Assessment.Formative assessment focuses on monitoring learning to providing students with ongoing feedback to improve skills and knowledge. Formative feedback is given frequently, and the assignments are often not graded. Deutsch (2016) provided a direct and thorough statement on formative assessment.

The purpose of assessment in composition is to enable students to better achieve their aesthetic goals. Composition teachers must continually seek to understand their students’ expressive intentions in order to provide instruction and feedback that makes this possible. Therefore, assessment should be embedded throughout the teaching and creative process—a procedure commonly referred to as formative assessment. (pp. 53-54)

Initially, all feedback will be teacher-driven. As students become more comfortable with the process, they should be encouraged to begin exchanging peer feedback. Teachers may need to help the students provide feedback appropriately, encouraging a balance between positive comments and constructive criticisms. Stringham (2016) provides a number of suggestions to help students provide peer feedback including (a) critiquing a piece of music the students are performing to model appropriate music criticism, (b) focusing on a range of attributes in each piece, and (c) providing alternative ideas when making a critical comment. As students become more adept, each discussion will help students deepen their understanding of the process whether they are receiving or providing feedback.

By contrast, summative assessment is focused on evaluating student learning, usually at the conclusion of a unit of study, by comparing it to a standard or benchmark. In a study of two high school band directors with award-winning programs who prioritize composition for all their students, Doiron (2019) described visceral reactions to summa- tive assessment from both participants. When asked about how student compositions are assessed, both immediately discussed summative assessment. The first participant responded:

Assessment is dangerous. . . . With fledgling composers, everybody writes, everybody creates something, and they often love that piece that isn’t good. It often means something to them. And what are you going to do? Are you going to give it an 84? Really? Do you think that kid’s ever going to write again? No. You give him a 77. “Oh, I stink at that." (p. 74)

The other stated:

We all get fed the line that if you don’t assess, kids won’t think it’s important, so they won’t be motivated to do a good job but that’s a total lie. The hyperfocus on assessment kills the joy in almost everything you do in school. (p. 102)

When asked a follow-up question on formative assessment, each responded that the formative feedback process was never-ending, integrated into the teaching and learning process at every step. When asked how they assign grades, the first said that all student compositions that were completed with reasonable effort from the student received an A because he didn’t want students to base their creative ability on a grade. The second said he does not grade creative work because he feels that it undermines a student’s intrinsic motivation to create. Ultimately, neither of these teachers are opposed to assessment. They are opposed to the misuse of summative assessment in an educational environment that has become increasingly driven by high-stakes testing. As expert teachers in that environment, they work to protect their students’ emerging sense of musical creativity while providing ongoing, quality, meaningful feedback that facilitates students’ musical growth.

Deutsch (2016) proposed “Summative assessment is actually formative assessment, but on a larger temporal level. Each project, each year of growth, each stage of development is part of the formative trajectory of students’ growing mastery” (p. 58). The ideal situation occurs when a student’s intrinsic drive to create is nurtured. That student writes, revises, and polishes an original composition. With some help from their peers and music teacher, they hear their piece performed. Constructively critical commentary and positive reinforcement are the necessary steps to make this process work. As teachers we should strive to frame that feedback in a manner that is both informative and inspirational.

References: Abrahams, F. E. (2000). Implementing the national standards for music education in pre-service teacher education programs: A qualitative study of two schools (9965947.) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Alexander, D. L. (2015). Intrinsic motivation in a collegiate secondary music instrument class (1667772264.) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 37-63.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview.

Azzara, C. D. (1993). Audiation-based improvisation techniques and elementary instrumental students’ music achievement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(4), 328-342.